Claims of Constructive Dismissal and Discrimination Over Study Arrangements
- Business Central
- Oct 22, 2024
- 3 min read
Updated: Nov 5, 2024
Ms Jefferies was employed full-time by ACC as a case manager from October 2022 until her resignation in February 2023. She alleged that she was unjustifiably disadvantaged, unjustifiably constructively dismissed and discriminated against during her employment.
During her time at ACC, Ms Jefferies was also studying full-time. She had disclosed her undergraduate studies during her interview. However, complications arose when she obtained entry into a master’s programme, which she intended to pursue remotely.
In January 2023, Ms Jefferies’ manager became concerned about her ongoing study arrangements, assuming her studies would finish at the end of 2022. The manager mistakenly believed that Ms Jefferies wished to work from home to accommodate her studies. On 1 February 2023, her manager called Ms Jefferies, informing that ACC would not support her working and studying full-time. ACC then sent Ms Jefferies a letter, stating it understood that she was going to study full-time and wanted to work from home due to her studies. Ms Jefferies was invited to let ACC know as soon as possible if these points were not accurate. The letter provided some reasons why ACC could not accommodate the working arrangement and an opportunity for Ms Jefferies to respond if she had an alternative proposal. Ms Jefferies resigned 27 minutes after receiving the letter, and there was no further discussion between the parties.
Ms Jefferies claimed constructive dismissal from ACC, arguing that the letter left her no option but to resign. ACC contended that she resigned without exploring alternative options. The Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) assessed whether ACC breached its duty, whether that breach was serious enough to indicate that ACC no longer intended to honour the employment contract, and whether Ms Jefferies’ resignation was motivated by this alleged breach.
The Authority found that ACC expressing its concerns was not a breach of duty. The letter’s purpose was to clarify ACC’s understanding and provide opportunity for Ms Jefferies to respond and correct any misunderstandings. The Authority concluded that these actions did not constitute a breach or indicate that ACC intended to disregard its contractual obligations.
ACC expressed its concern that full-time study might conflict with work hours and ACC’s policies on remote work during the phone conversation. Although ACC was mistaken about some factors, a mere mistake by an employer is not a breach of duty sufficient to justify a constructive dismissal claim.
The Authority also considered Ms Jefferies’ motivation in resigning. Her studies were very important to her, and she felt she had no choice but to resign because she believed ACC did not support her studies. She was unwilling to compromise on her studies. The Authority found that ACC was not obligated to accommodate Ms Jefferies’ decision to continue full-time studies. ACC did not breach any obligations in expecting her to prioritise her contractual commitment as a full-time employee. Therefore, no claim of constructive dismissal was made out.
The Authority then assessed whether ACC’s actions amounted to an unjustified disadvantage. Ms Jefferies claimed that ACC raised concerns based on incorrect information and gave her an ultimatum to reduce her study hours. Raising concerns, even if they contained incorrect information, was not unjustified, especially as ACC invited correction for any misunderstandings. Although Ms Jefferies believed she was given an ultimatum, the letter did not set this out. Rather, it established that the study arrangements were inconsistent with ACC’s remote work policy. The letter fell short of being a final decision by ACC. No employment conditions were changed, and her immediate resignation prevented any alternative resolution. It was not a disadvantage for an employer to expect adherence to prior contractual commitments. No unjustified disadvantage claim was established.
Ms Jefferies also claimed she was discriminated against, asserting she was treated differently from her co-workers with similar external time commitments such as childcare, sport and working in a family hotel. She argued that these commitments required just as much attention as full-time study and her co-workers were not subject to the same scrutiny.
The Authority found no evidence that ACC had made a conclusive decision regarding Ms Jefferies’ study arrangements. The ability to study was not a term of her employment. The Authority was not satisfied that she experienced differential treatment to the extent required by legislation or that ACC’s actions were motivated by any of the prohibited grounds. The circumstances did not meet the grounds for discrimination and no claim was made out.
The Authority did not issue any orders, and costs were reserved, with the parties encouraged to resolve any remaining issues between themselves.
Jefferies v Accident Compensation Corporation [[2024] NZERA 297; 21/05/24; C English]